In his monograph On Numbers and Games, J. H. Conway introduced a real-closed field containing the reals and the ordinals as well as a great many less familiar numbers including $-\omega, \,\omega/2, \,1/\omega, \sqrt{\omega}$ and $\omega-\pi$ to name only a few. Indeed, this particular real-closed field, which Conway calls No, is so remarkably inclusive that, subject to the proviso that numbers—construed here as members of ordered fields—be individually definable in terms of sets of NBG, it may be said to contain (...) “All Numbers Great and Small.” In this respect, No bears much the same relation to ordered fields that the system ℝ of real numbers bears to Archimedean ordered fields. In Part I of the present paper, we suggest that whereas $\mathbb{R}$should merely be regarded as constituting an arithmetic continuum, No may be regarded as a sort of absolute arithmetic continuum, and in Part II we draw attention to the unifying framework No provides not only for the reals and the ordinals but also for an array of non-Archimedean ordered number systems that have arisen in connection with the theories of non-Archimedean ordered algebraic and geometric systems, the theory of the rate of growth of real functions and nonstandard analysis. In addition to its inclusive structure as an ordered field, the system No of surreal numbers has a rich algebraico-tree-theoretic structure—a simplicity hierarchical structure—that emerges from the recursive clauses in terms of which it is defined. In the development of No outlined in the present paper, in which the surreals emerge vis-à-vis a generalization of the von Neumann ordinal construction, the simplicity hierarchical features of No are brought to the fore and play central roles in the aforementioned unification of systems of numbers great and small and in some of the more revealing characterizations of No as an absolute continuum. (shrink)

We try to answer the question which is the “right” foundation of mathematics, second order logic or set theory. Since the former is usually thought of as a formal language and the latter as a first order theory, we have to rephrase the question. We formulate what we call the second order view and a competing set theory view, and then discuss the merits of both views. On the surface these two views seem to be in manifest conflict with each (...) other. However, our conclusion is that it is very difficult to see any real difference between the two. We analyze a phenomenon we call internal categoricity which extends the familiar categoricity results of second order logic to Henkin models and show that set theory enjoys the same kind of internal categoricity. Thus the existence of non-standard models, which is usually taken as a property of first order set theory, and categoricity, which is usually taken as a property of second order axiomatizations, can coherently coexist when put into their proper context. We also take a fresh look at complete second order axiomatizations and give a hierarchy result for second order characterizable structures. Finally we consider the problem of existence in mathematics from both points of view and find that second order logic depends on what we call large domain assumptions, which come quite close to the meaning of the axioms of set theory. (shrink)

This paper is the first in a two-part series in which we discuss several notions of completeness for systems of mathematical axioms, with special focus on their interrelations and historical origins in the development of the axiomatic method. We argue that, both from historical and logical points of view, higher-order logic is an appropriate framework for considering such notions, and we consider some open questions in higher-order axiomatics. In addition, we indicate how one can fruitfully extend the usual set-theoretic semantics (...) so as to shed new light on the relevant strengths and limits of higher-order logic. (shrink)

A survey of Euclid's Elements, this text provides an understanding of the classical Greek conception of mathematics and its similarities to modern views as well as its differences. It focuses on philosophical, foundational, and logical questions — rather than strictly historical and mathematical issues — and features several helpful appendixes.

We emphasize the role of the choice of vocabulary in formalization of a mathematical area and remark that this is a particular preoccupation of logicians. We use this framework to discuss Kennedy’s notion of ‘formalism freeness’ in the context of various schools in model theory. Then we clarify some of the mathematical issues in recent discussions of purity in the proof of the Desargues proposition. We note that the conclusion of ‘spatial content’ from the Desargues proposition involves arguments which are (...) algebraic and even metamathematical. Hilbert showed that the Desargues proposition implies the coordinatizing ring is associative, which in turn implies the existence of a three-dimensional geometry in which the given plane can be embedded. With W. Howard we give a new proof, removing Hilbert’s ‘detour’ through algebra, of the ‘geometric’ embedding theorem. Finally, our investigation of purity leads to the conclusion that even the introduction of explicit definitions in a proof can violate purity. We argue that although both involve explicit definition, our proof of the embedding theorem is pure while Hilbert’s is not. Thus the determination of whether an argument is pure turns on the content of the particular proof. Moreover, formalizing the situation does not provide a tool for characterizing purity. (shrink)

This paper is an edited form of a letter written by the two authors (in the name of Tarski) to Wolfram Schwabhäuser around 1978. It contains extended remarks about Tarski's system of foundations for Euclidean geometry, in particular its distinctive features, its historical evolution, the history of specific axioms, the questions of independence of axioms and primitive notions, and versions of the system suitable for the development of 1-dimensional geometry.

The formal axiomatic method popularized by Hilbert and recently defended by Hintikka is not fully adequate to the recent practice of axiomatizing mathematical theories. The axiomatic architecture of Topos theory and Homotopy type theory do not fit the pattern of the formal axiomatic theory in the standard sense of the word. However these theories fall under a more general and in some respects more traditional notion of axiomatic theory, which I call after Hilbert constructive. I show that the formal axiomatic (...) method always requires a support of some more basic constructive method. (shrink)

This paper ties together much of the model theory of the last 50 years. Shelah's attempts to generalize the Morley theorem beyond first order logic led to the notion of excellence, which is a key to the structure theory of uncountable models. The notion of Abstract Elementary Class arose naturally in attempting to prove the categoricity theorem for L ω 1 ,ω (Q). More recently, Zilber has attempted to identify canonical mathematical structures as those whose theory (in an appropriate logic) (...) is categorical in all powers. Zilber's trichotomy conjecture for first order categorical structures was refuted by Hrushovski, by the introducion of a special kind of Abstract Elementary Class. Zilber uses a powerful and essentailly infinitary variant on these techniques to investigate complex exponentiation. This not only demonstrates the relevance of Shelah's model theoretic investigations to mainstream mathematics but produces new results and conjectures in algebraic geometry. (shrink)

We propose a criterion to regard a property of a theory (in first or second order logic) as virtuous: the property must have significant mathematical consequences for the theory (or its models). We then rehearse results of Ajtai, Marek, Magidor, H. Friedman and Solovay to argue that for second order logic, ‘categoricity’ has little virtue. For first order logic, categoricity is trivial; but ‘categoricity in power’ has enormous structural consequences for any of the theories satisfying it. The stability hierarchy extends (...) this virtue to other complete theories. The interaction of model theory and traditional mathematics is examined by considering the views of such as Bourbaki, Hrushovski, Kazhdan, and Shelah to flesh out the argument that the main impact of formal methods on mathematics is using formal definability to obtain results in ‘mainstream’ mathematics. Moreover, these methods (e.g., the stability hierarchy) provide an organization for much mathematics which gives specific content to dreams of Bourbaki about the architecture of mathematics. (shrink)

We show that the categoricity of second-order Peano axioms can be proved from the comprehension axioms. We also show that the categoricity of second-order Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, given the order type of the ordinals, can be proved from the comprehension axioms. Thus these well-known categoricity results do not need the so-called “full” second-order logic, the Henkin second-order logic is enough. We also address the question of “consistency” of these axiom systems in the second-order sense, that is, the question of existence of (...) models for these systems. In both cases we give a consistency proof, but naturally we have to assume more than the mere comprehension axioms. (shrink)

Contents: Acknowledgements. Conventions. Preface. Biographical sketch. 1 Introduction. 2 The Contributions. 3 Early work in analysis. 4 The Theory of Science . 5. Later mathematical studies. A On Kantian Intuitions. B The Bolzano-Cauchy Theorem.

We prove two results on the stability spectrum for Lω1,ω. Here [Formula: see text] denotes an appropriate notion of Stone space of m-types over M. Theorem for unstable case: Suppose that for some positive integer m and for every α μ, K is not i-stable in μ. These results provide a new kind of sufficient condition for the unstable case and shed some light on the spectrum of strictly stable theories in this context. The methods avoid the use of compactness (...) in the theory under study. In this paper, we expound the construction of tree indiscernibles for sentences of Lω1,ω. Further we provide some context for a number of variants on the Ehrenfeucht–Mostowski construction. (shrink)

Stephen George Simpson. with definition 1.2.3 and the discussion following it. For example, taking 90(n) to be the formula n §E Y, we have an instance of comprehension, VYEIXVn(n€X<—>n¢Y), asserting that for any given set Y there exists a ...

Key words: the continuum, structuralism, conceptual structuralism, basic structural conceptions, Euclidean geometry, Hilbertian geometry, the real number system, settheoretical conceptions, phenomenological conceptions, foundational conceptions, physical conceptions.

We give a consistency proof within a weak fragment of arithmetic of elementary algebra and geometry. For this purpose, we use EFA (exponential function arithmetic), and various first order theories of algebraically closed fields and real closed fields.

El artículo documenta y analiza las vicisitudes en torno a la incorporación de Hilbert de su famoso axioma de completitud, en el sistema axiomático para la geometría euclídea. Esta tarea es emprendida sobre la base del material que aportan sus notas manuscritas para clases, correspondientes al período 1894–1905. Se argumenta que este análisis histórico y conceptual no sólo permite ganar claridad respecto de cómo Hilbert concibió originalmentela naturaleza y función del axioma de completitud en su versión geométrica, sino que además (...) permite disipar equívocos en cuanto a la relación de este axioma con la propiedad metalógica de completitud de un sistema axiomático, tal como fue concebida por Hilbert en esta etapa inicial.The paper reports and analyzes the vicissitudes around Hilbert’s inclusion of his famous axiom of completeness, into his axiomatic system for Euclidean geometry. This task is undertaken on the basis of his unpublished notes for lecture courses, corresponding to the period 1894–1905. It is argued that this historical and conceptual analysis not only sheds new light on how Hilbert conceived originally the nature of his geometrical axiom of completeness, but also it allows to clarify some misunderstandings regarding this axiom and the metalogical property of completeness of an axiomatic system, as it was understoodby Hilbert in this initial stage. (shrink)

Provability, Computability and Reflection.

In Part I of this paper we argued that the first-order systems HP5 and EG are modest complete descriptive axiomatization of most of Euclidean geometry. In this paper we discuss two further modest complete descriptive axiomatizations: Tarksi’s for Cartesian geometry and new systems for adding $$\pi$$. In contrast we find Hilbert’s full second-order system immodest for geometrical purposes but appropriate as a foundation for mathematical analysis.

Major shifts in the field of model theory in the twentieth century have seen the development of new tools, methods, and motivations for mathematicians and philosophers. In this book, John T. Baldwin places the revolution in its historical context from the ancient Greeks to the last century, argues for local rather than global foundations for mathematics, and provides philosophical viewpoints on the importance of modern model theory for both understanding and undertaking mathematical practice. The volume also addresses the impact of (...) model theory on contemporary algebraic geometry, number theory, combinatorics, and differential equations. This comprehensive and detailed book will interest logicians and mathematicians as well as those working on the history and philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

Cauchy’s contribution to the foundations of analysis is often viewed through the lens of developments that occurred some decades later, namely the formalisation of analysis on the basis of the epsilon-delta doctrine in the context of an Archimedean continuum. What does one see if one refrains from viewing Cauchy as if he had read Weierstrass already? One sees, with Felix Klein, a parallel thread for the development of analysis, in the context of an infinitesimal-enriched continuum. One sees, with Emile Borel, (...) the seeds of the theory of rates of growth of functions as developed by Paul du Bois-Reymond. One sees, with E. G. Björling, an infinitesimal definition of the criterion of uniform convergence. Cauchy’s foundational stance is hereby reconsidered. (shrink)

We give a general account of the goals of axiomatization, introducing a variant on Detlefsen’s notion of ‘complete descriptive axiomatization’. We describe how distinctions between the Greek and modern view of number, magnitude, and proportion impact the interpretation of Hilbert’s axiomatization of geometry. We argue, as did Hilbert, that Euclid’s propositions concerning polygons, area, and similar triangles are derivable from Hilbert’s first-order axioms. We argue that Hilbert’s axioms including continuity show much more than the geometrical propositions of Euclid’s theorems and (...) thus are an immodest complete descriptive axiomatization of that subject. (shrink)

This paper is the second in a two-part series in which we discuss several notions of completeness for systems of mathematical axioms, with special focus on their interrelations and historical origins in the development of the axiomatic method. We argue that, both from historical and logical points of view, higher-order logic is an appropriate framework for considering such notions, and we consider some open questions in higher-order axiomatics. In addition, we indicate how one can fruitfully extend the usual set-theoretic semantics (...) so as to shed new light on the relevant strengths and limits of higher-order logic. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. By and large, definitions of a differentiable structure on a set involve two ingredients, topology and algebra. However, in some cases, partial information on one or both of these is sufficient. A very simple example is that of the field ℝ where algebra alone determines the ordering and hence the topology of the field:In the case of the field ℂ, the algebraic structure is insufficient to determine the Euclidean topology; another topology, Zariski, is associated with the ield but (...) this will be too coarse to give a diferentiable structure.A celebrated example of how partial algebraic and topological data determines a differentiable structure is Hilbert's 5th problem and its solution by Montgomery-Zippin and Gleason.The main result which we discuss here is of a similar flavor: we recover an algebraic and later differentiable structure from a topological data. We begin with a linearly ordered set ⟨M, <⟩, equipped with the order topology, and its cartesian products with the product topologies. We then consider the collection of definable subsets of Mn, n = 1, 2, …, in some first order expansion ℳ of ⟨M, <⟩. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. By and large, definitions of a differentiable structure on a set involve two ingredients, topology and algebra. However, in some cases, partial information on one or both of these is sufficient. A very simple example is that of the field ℝ where algebra alone determines the ordering and hence the topology of the field:In the case of the field ℂ, the algebraic structure is insufficient to determine the Euclidean topology; another topology, Zariski, is associated with the ield but (...) this will be too coarse to give a diferentiable structure.A celebrated example of how partial algebraic and topological data determines a differentiable structure is Hilbert's 5th problem and its solution by Montgomery-Zippin and Gleason.The main result which we discuss here is of a similar flavor: we recover an algebraic and later differentiable structure from a topological data. We begin with a linearly ordered set ⟨M, <⟩, equipped with the order topology, and its cartesian products with the product topologies. We then consider the collection of definable subsets of Mn, n = 1, 2, …, in some first order expansion ℳ of ⟨M, <⟩. (shrink)